Top Law Schools

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:24 pm**

1. Schools and COA

Columbia (sticker): 257,180

Chicago (sticker): 243,292

As for reference:

GULC (sticker): 237,626

USC ($): 120,587

2. Finances: No debt

3. Location: I am from Southern California. Ideally I would work in Los Angeles but it's not a problem to work in NY. No professional ties at all in US outside LA.

4. General career goal: Clerkship (hopefully federal) -> Govt (fed or state DA/AG) or BigLaw. Securing this is more important to me than location.

5. Numbers: 176 (twice). Between 3.0 and 3.5. Rejected from HS.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:30 pm**

I think that you should get a medal for scoring 176 twice, but it doesn't help their medians any more than just one instance of 176. Based on LST and Chicago's reputation for academic quality, which is important for clerkships, I vote Chicago.

EDIT: You do mention a willingness to work in NY, but you don't mention the same for Chi. It is common wisdom that one shouldn't choose a school based on clerkship placement, so if you would prefer an advantage at NYC biglaw, then Columbia has a respectable advantage. In your position, I would take Chi, but I'm indifferent to NYC versus Chicago, and I am very interested in clerking and the philosophy giants at Chicago.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:33 pm**

I would make this decision based on where you want to practice. If Chicago, pick University of Chicago. If New York, pick Columbia. If anywhere else, then pick based on where you would want to live for 3 years.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:45 pm**

I think Chicago does slightly better than Columbia with clerkships (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=225508), though it's hard telling how much of it is self selection. The above poster is probably right that this comes down to which city you'd prefer.

Also, if money really matters, go to UC. I'd bet the COA difference is greater than 14k over three years, having spent some time in each city.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:58 pm**

Surely there's more offers than just these and USC? What about other schools besides GULC in 6-13? What are you offers there? Btw GULC hasn't even offered scholarships yet too so I'd wait to hear from all parties this thread seems a bit premature.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:01 pm**

With a STEM background & a 3.36 or so GPA & 168,176 & 176 LSAT scores, I think that you can do better financially next cycle. In my opinion, paying over $250,000 for either is a bit unnerving when you should be able to get serious grant money within the T-14. Northwestern is one that might be generous if you apply ED, for example. Otherwise, it comes down to a geographical preference.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:06 pm**

CanadianWolf wrote:With a STEM background & a 3.36 or so GPA & 168,176 & 176 LSAT scores, I think that you can do better financially next cycle. In my opinion, paying over $250,000 for either is a bit unnerving when you should be able to get serious grant money within the T-14. Northwestern is one that might be generous if you apply ED, for example. Otherwise, it comes down to a geographical preference.

Yeah, I forgot to say that Idk if i would go anywhere at sticker.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:16 pm**

CanadianWolf wrote:With a STEM background & a 3.36 or so GPA & 168,176 & 176 LSAT scores, I think that you can do better financially next cycle. In my opinion, paying over $250,000 for either is a bit unnerving when you should be able to get serious grant money within the T-14. Northwestern is one that might be generous if you apply ED, for example. Otherwise, it comes down to a geographical preference.

Yea I forgot about this - ED NU next year easy accept for them and great choice for you. Btw they accepted two students with 168/3.8 stats for a 176 man they would love to have you - take the 150k next year for sure.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:25 pm**

First: Have you tried negotiating, or begging in this case, for some financial aid from either C or C? Maybe with an appeal you might be able to get something from one or the other and make your life easier. Even though USC is not a peer school, you can indicate that you have ties in CA and are debt averse, and so some aid would sway your decision. **Obviously you'd want to phrase it much better than that**

Now back to the actual question: I wanted to reinforce what some others have already said ITT, which is that although UChicago has stronger clerkship numbers compared to Columbia, this is very likely due to self-selection, and would not be indicative of your ability to obtain a clerkship. And again, as others have said, unless you have a lean on which city you'd like to practice in, choose the city you'd prefer to live in for 3 years. Personally I would choose NYC over Chicago any day, but that's a choice you'd have to make.

Either way, good dilemma. Congratulations and good luck with your decision!

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:32 pm**

whereskyle wrote:

1. I meant I took the LSAT twice, not that I scored 176 twice. I just meant to answer the question, but I did not do so clearly. Sorry about the confusion.
2. Thank you for the input. The reason (clerkship) you point out is exactly the reason I made this thread. I am only slightly more partial to NYC.

ph14 wrote:

1. For three years, I would prefer to live in LA-NYC-Chicago. But this is negligible compared to the anxiousness I have towards the possibility of striking out in 2 years from the "Veil" thread and "SA no offer" thread. If I chose solely based on where I want to practice I would choose Columbia (since S and Berkeley rejected me and I'd rather pay sticker for Columbia than sticker for UCLA + I think I should pay 250k to go to Columbia than 120k to go to USC as opposed to sticker v. full ride). Thank you for the input.

Florence Night wrote:I think Chicago does slightly better than Columbia with clerkships (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=225508), though it's hard telling how much of it is self selection. The above poster is probably right that this comes down to which city you'd prefer.

Also, if money really matters, go to UC. I'd bet the COA difference is greater than 14k over three years, having spent some time in each city.

1. From several sources, it seems clear that Chicago's clerkship > Columbia's clerkship. I wonder if the difference in clerkship justifies the choice for someone in my shoes.
2. Thank you for your input.

PrideandGlory1776 wrote:Surely there's more offers than just these and USC? What about other schools besides GULC in 6-13? What are you offers there? Btw GULC hasn't even offered scholarships yet too so I'd wait to hear from all parties this thread seems a bit premature.

Oh, I didn't know GULC has not made any offers. rejected or waitlisted from all schools in 6-13.

CanadianWolf wrote:

1. I may not get any grant money. I was actually as optimistic as you are with my situation. But being waitlisted at 6-14 (other than GULC) and receiving $0 from UCLA was discouraging. It's more discouraging since there are so many people on TLS getting significant scholarship and even full rides at T14 (I'm not saying that they don't deserve it more than me. It just is discouraging).
2. Sorry, I caused same confusion as the first poster: 168/176
3. Yeah, I agree. Even if I won't be in debt, paying 250k is really scary. And paying sticker price is also a bit disappointing (makes me feel more of a customer than a member of the community). But there is opportunity cost too so...(for one, entering the market 1 year later).
4. Thank you for your input!

I have to get going for now - thank you for everyone's responses!

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:33 pm**

PrideandGlory1776 wrote:
CanadianWolf wrote:With a STEM background & a 3.36 or so GPA & 168,176 & 176 LSAT scores, I think that you can do better financially next cycle. In my opinion, paying over $250,000 for either is a bit unnerving when you should be able to get serious grant money within the T-14. Northwestern is one that might be generous if you apply ED, for example. Otherwise, it comes down to a geographical preference.
Yea I forgot about this - ED NU next year easy accept for them and great choice for you. Btw they accepted two students with 168/3.8 stats for a 176 man they would love to have you - take the 150k next year for sure.

No one with a GPA that low is an easy accept for Northwestern ED.

OP keep riding other waitlists you might be on and work your way up with the negotiations.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:34 pm**

NY is not ties conscious at all.

LA is relatively less ties-conscious, but you said you have ties in LA, so you can go to school in another state and be fine getting back to SoCal.

Chicago is the most tie conscious out of the three, and it is the best school in the Midwest, thus I voted Chicago to open up more markets, in case you need it.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:44 pm**

Jchance wrote:NY is not ties conscious at all.

LA is relatively less ties-conscious, but you said you have ties in LA, so you can go to school in another state and be fine getting back to SoCal.

Chicago is the most tie conscious out of the three, and it is the best school in the Midwest, thus I voted Chicago to open up more markets, in case you need it.

I like this reasoning regarding ties. Regarding clerkships: I wonder if higher COL in NYC compels students to go straight to biglaw rather than to take a clerkship. However, it is very much my perception that Chicago is more focused on landing students clerkships, but I cannot support that with any substantial evidence. Can anyone offer supporting evidence for this?

Also, if you were WL'ed at UCLA, you may want to write an LOCI explaining your situation and your desire to attend school there. Maybe they YP'd you and would be willing to offer you a scholly given your interest.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:05 pm**

Voted CLS. I've had a lot of success in Southern California from here; more than people generally give credit for (bay area is a different story...). Clerking will be a rough push either way. If you are die-hard clerk/gov, then Chicago probably has a higher % of students headed in that direction. But since you'll most likely be at a firm, and you want SoCal, Im going to vote accordingly.

I would not do sticker debt anywhere, but if you have decided you feel comfortable with it then so be it. Also if you are going all loans, it's more like $280,000+.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:01 pm**

jbagelboy wrote:Voted CLS. I've had a lot of success in Southern California from here; more than people generally give credit for (bay area is a different story...). Clerking will be a rough push either way. If you are die-hard clerk/gov, then Chicago probably has a higher % of students headed in that direction. But since you'll most likely be at a firm, and you want SoCal, Im going to vote accordingly.

I would not do sticker debt anywhere, but if you have decided you feel comfortable with it then so be it. Also if you are going all loans, it's more like $280,000+.

How does CLS do in SF bay area? Assuming I've lived here for 23 years of my life.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:15 pm**

First, I'm sorry you haven't had more luck this cycle. With a 176 it seems like you would have better luck, even with a lower GPA.

I would absolutely go to USC. It is true you will have to be higher in the class to reach your goals than you would at Columbia or Chicago, but that risk would be worth it to me. I sometimes think people talk about these debt figures as abstract numbers, without really realizing how much $250,000 REALLY is. The above poster was right in that after interest it's closer to $280,000, maybe more, depending on how long it takes you to pay off and what kinds of interest rate you get. On a standard, 1K a month payment plan, you will be paying that off for approximately 30 years.

Did you maybe apply late in the cycle? If so, you could possibly apply earlier next year and have better luck.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:19 pm**

aboutmydaylight wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Voted CLS. I've had a lot of success in Southern California from here; more than people generally give credit for (bay area is a different story...). Clerking will be a rough push either way. If you are die-hard clerk/gov, then Chicago probably has a higher % of students headed in that direction. But since you'll most likely be at a firm, and you want SoCal, Im going to vote accordingly.

I would not do sticker debt anywhere, but if you have decided you feel comfortable with it then so be it. Also if you are going all loans, it's more like $280,000+.
How does CLS do in SF bay area? Assuming I've lived here for 23 years of my life.

11 people went there during 2012 OCI. Hard to say how much of that is self-selection, but it's certainly not a huge number. Most of the big players do come to interview though so you'd have your chances.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:40 pm**

Just so that you're aware of the actual costs of sticker. Assuming that Columbia continues with the 4.77% average yearly tuition+fees increases of the past five years and yearly 2% COL bump, your total debt at repayment there would be ~$320,000.

Assuming UChi continues with their average 4.49% tuition+fees increase and a yearly 2% COL bump, your total debt at repayment there would be ~$295,000.

Although you should be aware that this is assuming the COLs given by the schools, which can typically come down by a few thousand if you try. Chicago's more than Columbia's, though, as the posted COLs imply that Columbia's COL is only ~$250/mo more than UChi's. Unlikely.

ETA: Assuming that you got a $120k scholly from USC and doing the same calculations results in ~$155,000 debt at USC.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:46 am**

All indications are that both get you to California, I know Chicago does for a fact. Chicago leaves NYC as a viable plan B for sure so you aren't giving that up.

The marginally better clerkship numbers, closer geographic proximity to LA, and the 15k savings in COA push this to Chicago in my opinion. If you want to spend your LS career in NY it's close enough that it's justified. Can't go more right or wrong with either really.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:55 am**

Just wanted to say sorry about the retake

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:19 am**

If I were you I'd probs just visit both and go to the one I liked better. I think the only reasons to strongly lean one way or the other are cost and/or a desire to work in NY or Chicago.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:42 am**

For future reference people... Don't tell anyone they are def getting NU ED unless they are def above both medians. That has got to be my biggest tls gripe.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:52 am**

Which poster or posters wrote that OP would def get NU ED ?

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:38 am**

PrideandGlory1776 wrote:ED NU next year easy accept for them and great choice for you. Btw they accepted two students with 168/3.8 stats for a 176 man they would love to have you - take the 150k next year for sure.

Posted: **Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:24 am**

Have you gotten in touch with UCLA about getting yourself some $$$? I think you really should, since it seems like LA is high on your list.

I'm not sure I'd go with UCLA full ride over your other options. It's a tough choice.

Top Law Schools

Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker Forum

Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker

Re: Columbia sticker v. Chicago sticker